Filter
Lower Thames Crossing

Relevant representations (registration comments)

Search by the person or group making the submission or the content of the submission.

Showing 1101 to 1125 of 1148 representations, newest first.

Results per page 25 | View 50 results per page | View 100 results per page

  • Rebecca Reynolds

    The LTC is an extremely expensive scheme costing £10 Billion and will not solve the problem of congestion. It will make congestion worse in the longer term due to induced traffic demand. There will be... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Arup (Arup) on behalf of Redrow Homes Limited (Redrow Homes Limited)

    Redrow has an interest in development sites in the vicinity of, and area affected by, the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC). The following three points provide an outline of the principal submissions Redrow... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Richard Keegan

    I believe that the option described below has not been fully explored by the promoters of the Lower Thames Crossing. For more than 100 years the London, Tilbury and Southend (LTS now C2C) Railway... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Rimrose Valley Friends / Save Rimrose Valley (Rimrose Valley Friends / Save Rimrose Valley)

    I and the organisation I represent oppose The Lower Thames crossing for the following reasons: Transport is the UK's biggest generator of climate-wrecking CO2 emissions. Roads and the traffic they... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Rita Godfrey

    My main points are: The need to reduce the building of new roads, including 'bypasses' in order to meet the government climate change goals. The reduction of the costs/benefit ration in light of... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Rob Cox

    We live in [Redacted] cottages along North Road, South Ockendon. We understand that there will be a compound to the rear of our properties to be serviced by an access road to the side of the cottages.... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Robert Blake

    I am opposed to the Lower Thames Crossing. It wouldn't fix things at the Dartford Crossing, and I believe the evidence actually shows it would make things worse. It is not worth the billions of pounds... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Robert Wynn

    I m one of the landowners at Scalers Hill and have not bene satisfied with the approach of the proposed land agreement ( notwithstanding current negotiations).

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Roger Lindley

    There is not much open land left between Gravesend and the Medway Towns. There is already the A2, the Medway bypass, the A226, the Gravesend to Strood railway and the HS1 railway in the vicinity. This... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • RSPB (RSPB)

    Lower Thames Crossing Development Consent Order Application Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR010032 Text of Relevant Representation from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) 23... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Ruskin Landscapes Limited (Ruskin Landscapes Limited)

    We oppose the current DCO proposals on the basis that the new site location for the Construction compound presents far greater harm to the openness of the Green Belt and will incur greater costs to... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Shoosmiths LLP (Shoosmiths LLP) on behalf of S&J Padfield & Partners LLP (S&J Padfield & Partners LLP)

    This relevant representation is submitted by Shoosmiths LLP on behalf of Christopher Scott Padfield, S&J Padfield & Partners LLP and S&J Padfield Estates LLP (together, our “client”), the owners of... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Shoosmiths LLP (Shoosmiths LLP) on behalf of S&J Padfield Estates LLP (S&J Padfield Estates LLP)

    This relevant representation is submitted by Shoosmiths LLP on behalf of Christopher Scott Padfield, S&J Padfield & Partners LLP and S&J Padfield Estates LLP (together, our “client”), the owners of... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Sara Muldowney

    I am against the LTC scheme and am particularly concerned about the health and environmental impacts of the scheme, as well as the cost. The scheme is based on pre-COVID data which is now out of date... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Savannah

    I am strongly opposed to the LTC, this scheme is a waste of taxpayers' money in the cost-of-living crisis, equating to over 10 billion for construction and it is not fit for purpose.  I have been... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Scott Seacombe

    The proposed LTC is meant to solve the congestion at the current Dartford Crossing, ok this point it fails completely. NH own data shows that the Dartford crossing will be busier when the LTC opens... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Sharon Innes

    The impact on local roads and environment. Local voices to be heard.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Sheila Pinkstone

    This will not ease as proven by other roads, it will increase. Also it will badly affect the narrow road in my village causing traffic build ups as it has only one way in. Will cause unacceptable... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • South Coast Alliance for Transport and the Environment (South Coast Alliance for Transport and the Environment )

    SCATE believes that the regional repercussions of a new Lower Thames Crossing have been underestimated, that the implications for encouraging increased car use and climate change issues need... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Richard Max & Co LLP (Richard Max & Co LLP) on behalf of St John's College, Cambridge (St John's College, Cambridge)

    Please see attached.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023
    Contains attachment(s)

  • Pinsent Masons LLP (Pinsent Masons LLP) on behalf of St Modwen Developments Limited (St Modwen Developments Limited)

    This response is submitted by Pinsent Masons LLP on behalf of St Modwen Developments Limited ("St Modwen"). St Modwen is the developer and promoter of a proposed development known as Brentwood... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Stephen Perrett

    The project would: increase traffic growth leading to more carbon emissions, and combined with the construction emissions (see below), the total carbon emissions from the scheme would be at least 6.6... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Steven Edwards

    The proposed Lower Thames Crossing: • Would induce traffic demand – increasing cross river traffic by 50% (Private E Cars are a massive source of plastic particulates, contribute to congestion, road... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Shoosmiths LLP (Shoosmiths LLP) on behalf of Stuart Mee (Stuart Mee)

    This relevant representation is submitted by Shoosmiths LLP on behalf of Stuart Mee (our “client”), the owner/joint owner and occupier of land located within the wards of Upminster (Manor Farm,... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023
    Contains attachment(s)

  • Stuart Richard Chappell

    It is not in the national interest to grant consent to a proposed development order without providing replacement ancient woodland. The consent order proposes use of immature tree saplings on... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023